JUDGMENT This application has been filed by the plaintiffs and it is directed against an order passed by the trial court on the 25th June, 1969 adding a certain number of intervenor defendants at their request. 2. Originally the plaintiffs had impleaded only the 'State of Bihar as the sole defendant. In substance, the plaintiffs suit was based on the allegations made in Paragraph 14 of the plaint, which are as follows : It is alleged therein that in the recent survey settlements the lands of Tola Garrabasa, including the lands of revisional survey plot no.1961 and revisional survey plot no. 1843, were split up into 190 small plots and out of them 171 plots, mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint, were erroneously recorded in the name of the State of Bihar as "Anabad Bihar Sarkar" in Khata no.1 of village Jugsalai. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands in khas possession of their parents bad been wrongly recorded as in their illegal possession (Abaidh Dakhal) and the lands in possession of the monthly tenants of the plaintiffs had been wrongly recorded to be in illegal possession of the respective monthly tenants. On these allegations the plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the entries made in the settlement record of right prepared in the present survey settlement with respect of the lands of Schedule B, in the name of the State of Bihar as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar" and the possession thereof of the parents of the plaintiffs and their monthly tenants as illegal are wrong. 3. In this suit opposite parties no. 2 to 7 of this civil revision filed an application on the 21st May, 1969 praying that they may be added as defendants in the action to enable them to contest the suit. In this application the intervenors stated that in the recent settlement the parents of the plaintiffs filed objections under Section 83 of the Chotanagpnr Tenancy Act against recording of the intervenor-petitioners' names in respect of different plots. The petitioners contested the proceedings and the objections were rejected. It is stated, further, that the petitioners are tenants of the State of Bihar and are in actual physical possession of different plots,' the subject-matter of the snit. On these assertions made by the parties, the trial court has ordered that it was satisfied that the intervenors are proper parties and, therefore, their prayer was allowed. 4. It is stated, further, that the petitioners are tenants of the State of Bihar and are in actual physical possession of different plots,' the subject-matter of the snit. On these assertions made by the parties, the trial court has ordered that it was satisfied that the intervenors are proper parties and, therefore, their prayer was allowed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial court, adding the intervenors as defendants cannot be allowed to stand. Apart from the filet that the order of the court below is cryptic and it is not at all clear that the court applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the addition of these intervenors will wholly change the nature of the plaintiffs' suit. As indicated earlier, the plaintiffs' suit is only for a declaration as against the State of Bihar and the intervenors have been added on the allegation that they are in actual physical possession of different plots, being subject-matter of the suit. If these intervenors are allowed to remain as defendants on the allegations made by them, the plaintiffs will have to change the nature of the suit, valuing the properties claimed by these intervenors, praying for consequential relief, and converting the declaratory suit into a title suit. On the other hand, if the intervenors are not made parties, they will not be prejudiced in any way, as the decision in the plaintiffs' suit, even if it is favourable to them, would not affect the right, title and interest of these intervenors if any. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial court was not right in allowing addition of parties, changing the nature of the suit, without considering the matter in the proper perspective. The impugned order adding the intervenors as defendants is, therefore, set aside. 5. The civil revision is, therefore, allowed; but, under the circumstances, there will be no order for costs. Application allowed.